Комментарии к Библии

CHAPTER 19

Matthew 19:3. οἱ Φαρις.] Lachm. has deleted οἱ, following B C L M Δ Π, min. Correctly; the οἱ Φαρ. would suggest itself mechanically to the transcribers from being in current use by them; in several manuscripts it is likewise inserted in Mark 10:2.

After λέγοντες Elz. and Scholz insert αὐτῷ, which, owing to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a common interpolation, as are also αὐτοῖς, Matthew 19:4, αὐτήν, Matthew 19:7.

ἀνθρώπῳ] is wanting in B L Γ א* min. Aug., deleted by Lachm. Correctly; supplement from Matthew 19:5, and for which Cod. 4 has ἀνδρί (Mark 10:2).

Matthew 19:5. προσκολληθ.] Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche; κολληθ., following very weighty evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX.

Matthew 19:9. ὅτι before ὅς is not, with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the preponderance of evidence in its favour, and how readily may it have been overlooked, especially before ὅς, seeing that it is not indispensable.

Instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ Lachm. has παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, following B D, min. It. Or., but clearly borrowed from Matthew 5:32 by way of a gloss. For μή, Elz. and Scholz have εἰ μή, against decisive evidence; an exegetical addition.

κ. ὁ ἀπολελυμ. γαμ. μοιχᾶται] are deleted by Tisch. 8, following C** D L S א, vss. Or.? Chrys. But there is preponderating evidence in favour of the words, and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this.

Matthew 19:13. προσηνέχθη] Lachm. and Tisch.: προσηνέχθησαν, following B C D L א, min. Or. In presence of such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a grammatical correction.

Matthew 19:16. ἀγαθέ] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B D L א, min. codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18.

Matthew 19:17. The Received text (so also Fritzsche and Scholz) has τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. But the reading: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός, is attested by the very weighty evidence of B D L א, Vulg. It. Or. and other vss. and Fathers. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark and Luke, and would be adopted all the more readily the more the original reading seemed, as it might easily seem, to be inappropriate.[2] The order: εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθ. (Lachm., Tisch.), has decisive attestation; but τηρεῖ (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for τήρησον finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, Homil. Cl.

Matthew 19:20. ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητός μου] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐφύλαξα, following important, though not quite unanimous, witnesses (B D L א* among the uncial manuscripts; but D has retained ἐκ νεότ., though omitting μου). The reading of the Received text is taken from Luke and Mark.

Matthew 19:23. Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read πλούσιος δυσκόλως.

Matthew 19:24. Instead of the first εἰσελθεῖν, Elz. has διελθεῖν, which is defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, Tisch., who read εἰσελθεῖν. The evidence on both sides is very weighty. διελθεῖν is a correction for sake of the sense, with which εἰσελθεῖν was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25. If the second ἘΙΣΕΛΘΕῖΝ were to be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of inserting it after ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟΝ (Lachm.); but we must, with Tisch., following L Z א, 1, 33, Syrcur Or. and other Fathers, delete it as being a supplement from the parallel passages.

Matthew 19:28. For ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς read, with Tisch. 8, ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟΊ, following D L Z א, 1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical gloss.

Matthew 19:29. ὍΣΤΙς] The simple Ὅς (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; ΤΙς was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. Matthew 7:21, Matthew 10:32).

Ἢ ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ] after ΜΗΤ. is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke.

For ἙΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΠΛΑΣΊΟΝΑ Lachm. and Tisch. have ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑΣΙΟΝΑ, following B L, Syrjer Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it would be much more natural to explain the indefinite ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑς. from Mark 10:30 by means of the definite expression ἙΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΠΛΑς., than to explain the latter from Luke 18:30 by means of ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑς.

[2] So also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 268 f. Differently Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 f., but not on critical evidence.

Matthew 19:1 f. With his usual formula, κ. ἐγέν. ὅτε ἐτέλ., κ.τ.λ. (Matthew 7:28, Matthew 11:1, Matthew 13:53), Matthew here introduces the account of the closing stage in Christ’s ministry by mentioning His departure from Galilee to Judaea. It does not follow (comp. note on Matthew 16:21) that there may not have been previous visits to Judaea (in answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this journey, above all, the prominence due to its high significance, it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final visit to the capital.

The conversation concerning divorce and marriage is likewise given in Mark 10:1 ff., and, on the whole, in a more original shape.

μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλ.] Comp. Matthew 17:22; Matthew 17:24.

πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου] This expression cannot be intended to define the locale of εἰς τὰ ὄρια τῆς Ἰουδαίος, for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and Judaea (Matthew 4:15; Matthew 4:25) meant different districts, although, according to Ptolem. v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in Judaea; neither can it belong to μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τ. Γαλ. (Fritzsche: “Movens a Galilaea transiit fluvium”), for κ. ἦλθεν εἰς τ. ὄρ. τ. Ἰουδ. is not of the nature of a parenthesis; rather is it to be regarded as indicating the route (Mark 10:1) which Jesus took, thus defining ἦλθεν (Mark 7:31) somewhat more precisely, lest it should be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea, and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west side of the Jordan (somewhere in the neighbourhood of Jericho, Matthew 20:29). The expression is not awkward (Volkmar); nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as showing that the Gospel was written in some district east of the Jordan.

Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be reconciled with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to this side of the Jordan (Luke 9:51, and see note on Luke 17:11); nor with the account of John, who, John 10:22, says nothing about the journey to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as already there, and in John 19:40 as setting out from that city to make a short sojourn in Peraea.

ἐκεῖ] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, Matthew 19:1. On αὐτούς (their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion.

Matthew 19:3. Πειράζοντες] The question was of an ensnaring nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note on Matthew 5:31. There is not the slightest foundation in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, within that prince’s domains, in a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai; for with κ. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν they suggested the answer, No), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this matter; comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr. p. 34 ff.

εἰ] See note on Matthew 12:10.

τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ] Assuming ἀνθρώπῳ to be spurious, the αὐτοῦ can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the τίς implied in the ἔξεστι. For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D.

κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν] for every cause, which he has to allege against her,—the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form; as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim); but, according to Matthew’s version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical rock implied in κ. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν. After having laid down as a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point in their query in the very decided terms of Matthew 19:9, where He says, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Matthew 19:4. Αὐτούς] δηλαδὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· τουτὶ μὲν οὖν τὸ ῥητὸν ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς γενέσεως (Matthew 1:27) γέγραπται, Euthymius Zigabenus. The following αὐτούς should be understood after ὁ ποιήσας, as the object of the succeeding verb has often to be supplied after the participle (Krüger’s note on Xen. Anab. i. 8. 11). For ποιεῖν, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. p. 76 C; Hesiod, Theog. 110, 127 (γένος ἀνθρώπων).

ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] does not belong to ὁ ποιήσας (as usually explained), in which case it would be superfluous, but to what follows (Fritzsche, Bleek), where great stress is laid on the expression, “since the very beginning” (Matthew 19:8).

ἄρσεν κ. θῆλυ] as male and female, as a pair consisting of one of each sex.

ἐποίησεν] after ὁ ποίησας the same verb. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 21, and Gramm. II. 2, p. 656.

Matthew 19:5. Εἶπεν] God. Comp. note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. Although, no doubt, the words of Genesis 2:24 were uttered by Adam, yet, as a rule, utterances of the Old Testament, in which God’s will is declared, are looked upon as the words of God, and that altogether irrespective of the persons speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the passage.

ἕνεκεν τούτου] refers, in Genesis 2:24, to the formation of the woman out of the rib of the man. But this detail, which belongs to an incident assumed by Jesus to be well known, is included in the general statement of Matthew 19:4, so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhat freely, the particular to which the ἕνεκεν τούτου refers. Observe, at the same time, that Matthew 19:4-5 together constitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to appear in the shape of an inference in the verse immediately following.

καταλείψει “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui uni paterna et materna cedit,” Bengel.

οἱ δύο] These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followed by the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly emphasizing the claims of monogamy. See note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. The article indicates the two particular persons in question.

εἰς σάρκα μίαν] Ethical union may also be represented by other ties; but this cannot be said of bodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, that in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth constituted one person. Comp. Sir 25:25 and Grimm’s note. The construction is not Greek (in which εἷναι εἰς means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. Phil. p. 39 E; Alc. I. p. 126 A), but a rendering of the Hebrew הָיָה לְ (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.).

Matthew 19:6. Οὐκέτι] after this union, Matthew 19:5.

εἰσί] are they, that is, the two of Matthew 19:5.

ὅ] quod, “ut non tanquam de duobus, sed tanquam de uno corpore loqueretur,” Maldonatus.

ὁ θεός] through what is said in Matthew 19:5. Observe the contrast to ἄνθρωπος.

Having regard, therefore, to the specific nature of marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly condemns divorce generally as being a putting asunder on the part of man of what, in a very special way, God has joined together. With regard to the exception, by which, in fact, the essential idea of marriage as a divine institution is already practically destroyed, see Matthew 19:9, and comp. note on Matthew 5:32.

Matthew 19:7. Supposed counter-evidence.

ἐνετείλατο] Deuteronomy 24:1, in which, indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain κατὰ διάνοιαν the prescription of the bill of divorce. Mark—and in this his account is certainly more original—represents the whole reply of Jesus as beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on the matter (Matthew 10:3). Moreover, the more appropriate expression ἐπέτρεψεν, which in Matthew 19:8 is ascribed to Jesus (not so in Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper reflection.

Comp. besides, note on Matthew 5:31.

Matthew 19:8. Πρός] out of regard to, with (wise) consideration so as to avert greater evil.

σκληροκαρδίαν] stubbornness of heart (Mark 16:14; Romans 2:5; Acts 7:51; Sir 16:10; Deuteronomy 10:16), which will not be persuaded to self-reflection, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.; κατὰ διαφόρους αἰτίας μισούντων τὰς γαμετὰς, καὶ μὴ καταλλαττομένων αὐταῖς. Ἐνομοθέτησε γὰρ ἀπολύειν ταύτας, ἵνα μὴ φονεύωνται, Euthymius Zigabenus.

οὐ γέγονεν οὕτω] non ita factum est, namely, that a man should have permission to put away his wife. The above primitive institution of God is accordingly not abrogated by Moses, who, on account of the moral obduracy of the people, is rather to be understood as only granting a dispensation in the form of a letter of divorce, that the woman might be protected against the rude severity of the man.